TheRPGSite

Following up on a side topic that went came up in "Use of campfires attracting attention" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/use-of-campfires-attracting-attention/). I had said:

Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 08:42:09 PM
If I want to push more realism and have the PCs take wagon trains and caravans to supply long journeys, I try my best to make it fun for them rather than a constant drag of nitpicking them with details and vulnerabilities.

In practice, I've seen a lot of GMs push back if players try to have an expedition with lots of porters, pack animals, and other support characters for them -- because it comes across as unheroic and breaks assumptions.

There were two responses on the last point,

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 12, 2021, 08:52:15 PM
Those GMs are dumb. We call it an adventuring campaign for a reason. There's a reason it's 30-300 bandits - someone's got to cook the gruel, after all.

Too many gamers have never read the AD&D1e Player's Handbook back section, from p.101 onwards. "THE ADVENTURE" first paragraph tells us to gather information and hire men-at-arms, get mounts and so on if we can.

Quote from: Ravenswing on July 15, 2021, 05:59:37 AM
Pfft on them.  My wife and I love logistics: we're the ones who pore over gear for optimum use. We come by this honestly; we met in a combat boffer LARP with many camping events a year.  If anyone has any question on the matter, if you're going to be out all day swinging swords in 90+ degree weather, you want to have a good hot meal in your belly made from good food, you want to have slept through the cold rain last night in a dry tent, you want to have had a good night sleep in good bedding, and you want plenty of pure liquid to drink.

By contrast, people who figured they were young and tough, wrapped themselves in a cloak, dined on a half-bag of Doritos, tried to sleep on a hillside without shelter, no change of clothing ... nope.  Didn't fight so well.

So yeah: if I'm a PC, I'm going to pay attention to logistics.  If I can afford it, I'll absolutely pop for a pack mount, quality camping gear, good food.  A GM who "pushes back" on that is a campaign I'm walking away from. 

-----

Fundamentally, the clash here is between fictional narratives like The Lord of the Rings and the like - where a few adventurers go it alone - versus historical expeditions which would typically have at least a dozen people or even several dozen including servants, guides, and the like.

As I see it, the key difference in assumptions is that a large and well-equipped expedition is much slower and less stealthy than adventurers on their own. Historically, fatigue, disease and getting lost were the deadliest dangers. In RPGs, these rarely feature - and instead there are wandering monster attacks.

I did something a little like this in a previous campaign - which was a post-apocalyptic game along the lines of The Living Dead. The PCs were shepherding the last of civilization to safety underground while a dragon apocalypse ravaged the surface world. So the PCs had an entourage of non-combatants they were leading.

D&D adventures tend to assume lone adventurers - especially in having stealth or speed required. Some specific issues:

(1) In many game worlds, powerful wandering monsters make the wilderness effectively unsurvivable for an unstealthy expedition with vulnerable non-combatants. In my post-apocalyptic game, this was a feature rather than a problem -- the group faced unacceptable losses because there was no choice. In other games, it may take more explanation for why things are how they are.

(2) Some adventures have an imposed time limit, like "in X days the enemy's plans will succeed" or similar. This

(3) If there is no time limit per se, some modules turn into a longer-term war of attrition rather than the more normal room-by-room approach. For example, a module like Steading of the Hill Giant Chief could turn into something more like a siege or series of guerrilla attacks over weeks rather than going through rooms round by round. A module like Tomb of Horrors might be more like an archeological expedition taking several days per room.

Thoughts?

Quote from: jhkim on July 19, 2021, 09:45:50 PMThoughts?

You raise a lot of good points, although I think your point (2) above may have gotten cut off somehow. For a literary example of the same kind of "refugee train" campaign as yours, the primary plot of the second Malazan novel Deadhouse Gates is about a similar situation, a great mass of refugees from an overrun nation trekking across hostile terrain to reach safety.

I suspect that the basic starting assumption of D&D -- i.e. that a party was never more than a few days' travel between a relatively "civilized", "safe" home base and the place of their adventuring, the location of which was also generally already known (q.v., the Keep on the Borderlands and the Caves of Chaos) -- played a lot into how the game developed as well. Random wilderness encounters were intended to make a short journey interesting, not an incredibly long and difficult one even more dangerous.

I have to admit, I don't immediately have an idea for how to encourage players to buy into the logistical detail of expedition management as fun for its own sake if they're not already inclined to find such things entertaining, but maybe a minigame rules module might help?

The 'here there be Dragons!' plot device is always fun to do.  I have found myself down to 2-3 players and the expedition platform has always worked for me.  Especially, when we spend entire session putting together the NPCs and resources they need. Players love to make characters and try new things, NPC's satisfying a lot of urges.  The players also get to do things that a gaming group rarely get to do: sea voyages that lead to discoveries of new lands and people and terrors!

I always start out by having them make three characters:
1.  The leaders of the expedition.  Generally, higher level/power.
2.  The Scout team leaders.  Generally, mid level/power.
3.  Leaders of the men-at-arms and all the support staff.  Cooks, engineers, sailor etc. 

Usually, the leaders are the children of rich merchants or nobles etc.  Everyone picked to go along knows that they can have a share of the gold and glory.  Folks back home write off the expedition, even forget about entirely.  When it returns, the characters use it brag and even get new characters interested in joining the group.  'We couldn't bring back all the treasure, we didn't have room!  We left piles of it!"

I've done this several times and the longest running one ran a whole school year.  It was a good time.  Used D&D 2E...

Ignoring all the potentially boring details, it might be easiest to give a cost per day for wilderness travelling, say 50gp and assume it covers food, livestock, porters, etc. Have the party choose how many days they wish to pay for in advance and if they are in the wilderness longer than what they've paid for, then reduce ability scores some amount per day until they reach civilization and get properly fed and rested.

In a way this is kind of a gamble for the players; they can look at the map or get some info from people who know the area and estimate how many days it is on the journey and then pay the price. If they guess wrong, or bad luck happens, or monster encounters slow them down, etc then they may suffer the ill effects. Makes missions like scouting a mountain range to find a pass much more dangerous.

And, I forgot to add, the amount paid before the journey starts isn't refundable so if the players can't purchase, say, a hundred days of travel and then get a refund if it only ends up being a 20 day trip.

I look at from the tone of the campaign and the nature of the setting.  If the threat is often things like 100 to 300 orc bands and the game can make numbers overwhelming, then the small army of followers or hired mercenaries--at least in the base camp--is the way to go.  Big monsters are more a threat because of the attrition they cause and the morale they shake.  Accordingly, even within that environment, there are times to scout with a small, highly competent band.  Also times to delve with the smallest but most competent band. 

It's not just that "camp guards" won't go into the dungeon.  It's that those guys aren't experienced to work in that environment, you need a small number to sneak around, and you need your guards to be relatively whole to make it back to civilization.  When the game rules or the setting changes to mute or remove those assumptions, then logistics becomes a game chore instead of part of the game.

Players in my groups are, on average, far more accepting of managing logistics and handling large numbers of characters when in the wilderness, too.  Perhaps it is how I manage the characters differently.  It's fun to get to roll a lot of attacks because you've got 10 archers to roll for when the orc horde is charging.  It's not as fun to keep up with them when maneuvering in tight quarters and most of them can't do anything except react fearfully to the sound of one of their comrades getting eaten or falling in a pit.  I've had players in the past that enjoyed that aspect of the game, but not so much now.

Quote from: jhkim on July 19, 2021, 09:45:50 PM
Following up on a side topic that went came up in "Use of campfires attracting attention" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/use-of-campfires-attracting-attention/). I had said:

Quote from: jhkim on July 12, 2021, 08:42:09 PM
If I want to push more realism and have the PCs take wagon trains and caravans to supply long journeys, I try my best to make it fun for them rather than a constant drag of nitpicking them with details and vulnerabilities.

In practice, I've seen a lot of GMs push back if players try to have an expedition with lots of porters, pack animals, and other support characters for them -- because it comes across as unheroic and breaks assumptions.

There were two responses on the last point,

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 12, 2021, 08:52:15 PM
Those GMs are dumb. We call it an adventuring campaign for a reason. There's a reason it's 30-300 bandits - someone's got to cook the gruel, after all.

Too many gamers have never read the AD&D1e Player's Handbook back section, from p.101 onwards. "THE ADVENTURE" first paragraph tells us to gather information and hire men-at-arms, get mounts and so on if we can.

Quote from: Ravenswing on July 15, 2021, 05:59:37 AM
Pfft on them.  My wife and I love logistics: we're the ones who pore over gear for optimum use. We come by this honestly; we met in a combat boffer LARP with many camping events a year.  If anyone has any question on the matter, if you're going to be out all day swinging swords in 90+ degree weather, you want to have a good hot meal in your belly made from good food, you want to have slept through the cold rain last night in a dry tent, you want to have had a good night sleep in good bedding, and you want plenty of pure liquid to drink.

By contrast, people who figured they were young and tough, wrapped themselves in a cloak, dined on a half-bag of Doritos, tried to sleep on a hillside without shelter, no change of clothing ... nope.  Didn't fight so well.

So yeah: if I'm a PC, I'm going to pay attention to logistics.  If I can afford it, I'll absolutely pop for a pack mount, quality camping gear, good food.  A GM who "pushes back" on that is a campaign I'm walking away from. 

-----

Fundamentally, the clash here is between fictional narratives like The Lord of the Rings and the like - where a few adventurers go it alone - versus historical expeditions which would typically have at least a dozen people or even several dozen including servants, guides, and the like.

As I see it, the key difference in assumptions is that a large and well-equipped expedition is much slower and less stealthy than adventurers on their own. Historically, fatigue, disease and getting lost were the deadliest dangers. In RPGs, these rarely feature - and instead there are wandering monster attacks.

I did something a little like this in a previous campaign - which was a post-apocalyptic game along the lines of The Living Dead. The PCs were shepherding the last of civilization to safety underground while a dragon apocalypse ravaged the surface world. So the PCs had an entourage of non-combatants they were leading.

D&D adventures tend to assume lone adventurers - especially in having stealth or speed required. Some specific issues:

(1) In many game worlds, powerful wandering monsters make the wilderness effectively unsurvivable for an unstealthy expedition with vulnerable non-combatants. In my post-apocalyptic game, this was a feature rather than a problem -- the group faced unacceptable losses because there was no choice. In other games, it may take more explanation for why things are how they are.

(2) Some adventures have an imposed time limit, like "in X days the enemy's plans will succeed" or similar. This

(3) If there is no time limit per se, some modules turn into a longer-term war of attrition rather than the more normal room-by-room approach. For example, a module like Steading of the Hill Giant Chief could turn into something more like a siege or series of guerrilla attacks over weeks rather than going through rooms round by round. A module like Tomb of Horrors might be more like an archeological expedition taking several days per room.

Thoughts?

I am a big fan of parties that organize and go the route of hiring porters, guides, etc. You do have to account for time pressure (if the place being explored is abandoned, then makes this easier, but if it is lived in, obviously you can't quite do the archaeological dig into someone's house without attracting attention pretty frequently). But this to me plays into players playing the game smart and trying to outwit the challenges they face. If putting together a caravan achieves that, I don't see any issue with it. You will need to account for things like cost. What often happens in my campaigns is players start out with less money and have to work their way up a bit before they can attempt these sorts of things.

It isn't quite the same but i had several long term campaigns where players were building organizations in the setting and those because the base of their adventures (i.e. starting sects in a wuxia setting, starting criminal empires in a fantasy or wuxia setting, etc). It does lead to different kinds of adventures. Sometimes the adventure is planning stuff at the sect headquarters, dealing with people coming to ask for favors or sending special teams to take out rivals, etc. But it is still a lot of fun and you can still have ventures into dungeons and stuff

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 12, 2021, 08:52:15 PM
Those GMs are dumb. We call it an adventuring campaign for a reason. There's a reason it's 30-300 bandits - someone's got to cook the gruel, after all.

Too many gamers have never read the AD&D1e Player's Handbook back section, from p.101 onwards. "THE ADVENTURE" first paragraph tells us to gather information and hire men-at-arms, get mounts and so on if we can.

Apparently Kyle hasnt read the DMG or he'd know that the # encountered is supposed to represent the total spread out across a dungeon level or overland hex. Not all in one go. But for some reason that has been repeatedly lost and mis-read.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 19, 2021, 11:18:51 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 19, 2021, 09:45:50 PMThoughts?

I have to admit, I don't immediately have an idea for how to encourage players to buy into the logistical detail of expedition management as fun for its own sake if they're not already inclined to find such things entertaining, but maybe a minigame rules module might help?

This is a big challenge I've encountered int these kinds of games. One reason I've run them, is I have and have had players who find this kind of logistical stuff very entertaining. I've often come up with various systems for managing the logistics. I've found very few that don't get brushed to the side by such players (for example I've tried to abstract things like costs and hiring large groups, and most of these players want things concrete, not abstract: I pay 100 gold and get x). Not saying this is the case for everyone. I've just found after trying to build my own subsystems for sect building or managing the logistics of a crime racket, that the attracting to this stuff with the players I've had, has largely been about doing something specific and getting a specific result to that, rather than it becoming a mini-game on its own. There are some exceptions. One thing that comes up a lot in these games is sending out groups of hirelings to do things (assassins, builders, diplomats, etc). What I found worked well here was assigning a score that translated into a dice pool (my game is based on dice pools) of 1d10 to 6d10 (and there is a lower rating for unranked characters where they roll 2d10 and take the single lowest result). So the players might have a right hand man who has a general rank of 4d10 for the things he is sent out to. Or they might have a hit squad with a rank of 3d10. Anytime they send those characters do do something, I will roll that pool against the target and determine the result that way. This generally has worked well.

This is normal stuff in my games.

When the PC's invariably reach a certain experience point in the game they're inevitably going to have to plan expeditions to <X>.

Depending on the size of the expedition - it almost always creates more content in just in trying to put the expedition together. Whether it means using contacts to cut corners, or make the trip easier (provisioning is always an issue). Plus if it requires travel along known traderoutes before going offroading - some player almost always wants to make some extra coin with hauling tradegoods to points of interest.

All of which requires:

- Porters, Wagons, Packanimals, handlers
- Provisioning for all the PCs/NPCs
- Security
- Scouting and general camp-coordinating

This all leads to tons of adventuring possibilities.

- Attacks and recovery on your expedition
- Re-provisioning when inevitable stuff gets lost
- Search and rescue for NPC's that get shafted (you really didn't think all those NPC's were totally safe did you?)
- Puh-LENTY of RP opportunities between PC's and NPC's that you can use for side-quests. Especially if your expedition hits trade-hubs
- Every single night: Watch rotation. What could possibly happen? You know what happens at night. GET THEM!
- Scouting opportunities are adventure opportunities. Sure you're going to your destination... but that doesn't mean your trailbreakers can't find something interesting for now or later.

Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2021, 09:53:58 AM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 12, 2021, 08:52:15 PM
Those GMs are dumb. We call it an adventuring campaign for a reason. There's a reason it's 30-300 bandits - someone's got to cook the gruel, after all.

Too many gamers have never read the AD&D1e Player's Handbook back section, from p.101 onwards. "THE ADVENTURE" first paragraph tells us to gather information and hire men-at-arms, get mounts and so on if we can.

Apparently Kyle hasnt read the DMG or he'd know that the # encountered is supposed to represent the total spread out across a dungeon level or overland hex. Not all in one go. But for some reason that has been repeatedly lost and mis-read.

Where does the DMG say that?

Quote from: jhkim on July 19, 2021, 09:45:50 PMFundamentally, the clash here is between fictional narratives like The Lord of the Rings and the like - where a few adventurers go it alone - versus historical expeditions which would typically have at least a dozen people or even several dozen including servants, guides, and the like.

I'm older than most here, so to me the "fictional narratives" include movies like Jason and the Argonauts and Seventh Voyage of Sinbad.  Thus large expeditions is totally something that as a DM I encourage. I've even tweaked my OD&D combat system (using rules from EPT) to make it so battles of 30 on 30 are totally playable so the hired help isn't limited to just guarding the baggage.

Pathfinder had an adventure path that involved this. Jade Regent, to be specific.

It was interesting, but kind of annoying as well.

I used to run campaigns that were basically Marco Polo (Volo) in the Realms that would take young low level adventurers working for Aurora's (Of the Whole Realms Catalog fame) on a trading expedition all the way across the Realms, through the Hordelands, to Shou Lung.

It was fun as the PC's rose in prominence eventually they were making the decisions on the route taken, from city to city. Tons of political intrigue, making allies/enemies etc. all on top of the whole expedition list of needs and concerns. It's always a winner.

I don't know entirely about the thesis but I will point out that in my "How to play 1e AD&D" video series I'm doing on my youtube channel ( https://www.youtube.com/c/thedungeondelver ), I strongly emphasize hirelings.  A party of 5 may have anywhere from 25-40 hirelings: bearers, linkboys, men-at-arms, animal handlers for horses, the list goes on and on.  As a party advances in levels they will find these troops used less and less as in-dungeon front line combat troops and more as support personnel.  You take down a mated pair of huge ancient red dragons, you're going to need guards for the Silver Train back to the City of Greyhawk!

My group of 12 players on Monday night has a somewhat smaller retinue; 28 hirelings: 11 light foot, 9 cavalry, 3 heavy foot, and a pair of animal handlers/teamsters for their wagon.  So that works out to just over 2 per character (they were all mostly hired by a single character, but imagine if each player had picked up 5-6 each, that'd be 60-80 men under arms).

Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2021, 09:53:58 AM
Apparently Kyle hasnt read the DMG or he'd know that the # encountered is supposed to represent the total spread out across a dungeon level or overland hex. Not all in one go. But for some reason that has been repeatedly lost and mis-read.

There are 11 occurrences of the word "Bandits" in the Dungeon Masters Guide, under none of them does it say "spread out across a dungeon level or overland hex" or even imply it.  Besides, why would Bandits do that?  That sounds like the specious argument about how it "required" five Shermans to take down a Tiger in France during the Normandy invasion.  The US Armor forces didn't send out single tanks to duel!  They were sent out in platoons, of five.  Bandits won't send out penny-packets of troops to deal with an armed, angry force of adventurers.  They'll bring their "army" to bear against them.

As for occupying a dungeon, sure, you're not going to find them all crammed into one room in a circle guarding their treasure hoard and nobody with a lick of sense thinks they will.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 21, 2021, 09:37:52 AM
I'm older than most here, so to me the "fictional narratives" include movies like Jason and the Argonauts and Seventh Voyage of Sinbad.  Thus large expeditions is totally something that as a DM I encourage. I've even tweaked my OD&D combat system (using rules from EPT) to make it so battles of 30 on 30 are totally playable so the hired help isn't limited to just guarding the baggage.

Would you be willing to share your tweak? I like getting the players involved in large battles.

"You see 8 ogres standing looking bored in an empty field next to a pile of treasure."

Quote from: Khazav on July 20, 2021, 04:46:13 AM
And, I forgot to add, the amount paid before the journey starts isn't refundable so if the players can't purchase, say, a hundred days of travel and then get a refund if it only ends up being a 20 day trip.

Would you allow some of this to be saved as non-perishables?  Like you'd definitely not be able to save wages and preserved food eventually goes bad but does this include torches, pitons, tents, sleeping gear, etc that can be carried over to the next expedition?

This also makes treasure hordes more realistic for humanoids and bandits and the like as mundane provisions help restock.

There is certainly something to be said about side quests to restock or recover stolen / "wandered off" goods.

While not everyone may be into running a caravan, it could be a source of a travelling "Home Base".

I certainly don't see anything wrong with bringing a lot of people along on an expedition if that's what everyone wants to do, and managing the expedition can quickly become a mini-game.  I actually enjoy that.

That said, it can lead to very different play.  The focus is on the PCs less frequently, less time is spent on action and more on strategy, logistics, management, and planning.  The pace slows down.  Stealth and rapid movement become very difficult.  For these reasons I'd usually prefer a smaller group of characters and then pick the enemies accordingly.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on July 20, 2021, 09:57:16 AM
I have to admit, I don't immediately have an idea for how to encourage players to buy into the logistical detail of expedition management as fun for its own sake if they're not already inclined to find such things entertaining, but maybe a minigame rules module might help?

This is a big challenge I've encountered int these kinds of games. One reason I've run them, is I have and have had players who find this kind of logistical stuff very entertaining. I've often come up with various systems for managing the logistics. I've found very few that don't get brushed to the side by such players (for example I've tried to abstract things like costs and hiring large groups, and most of these players want things concrete, not abstract: I pay 100 gold and get x).[/quote]

My post-apocalyptic game was a little different because the NPCs were being paid to stick with the PCs - they were there for survival. But I think the players generally reacted positively to having NPCs with positive attitudes towards them. After saving their lives once or twice, the NPCs were really grateful and helpful.

If the PCs are respected and looked up to, I think that makes a big difference in how the players regard the NPCs. In too many games, PCs don't get much respect from NPCs.

For bookkeeping - I maintained a columned sheet with the NPCs that were with the party at any time - it went into the middle of the table in a folder with other general info for them  - including player maps and abbreviated character sheets for the NPCs who had some class ability. We just would collectively update that sheet as things changed.

I feel like it's pretty easy to discourage this just by having a bit of trouble to have the NPCs around - between bookkeeping and expense and morale problems, the players could easily find it not worth the effort.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on July 20, 2021, 09:57:16 AM
One thing that comes up a lot in these games is sending out groups of hirelings to do things (assassins, builders, diplomats, etc). What I found worked well here was assigning a score that translated into a dice pool (my game is based on dice pools) of 1d10 to 6d10 (and there is a lower rating for unranked characters where they roll 2d10 and take the single lowest result). So the players might have a right hand man who has a general rank of 4d10 for the things he is sent out to. Or they might have a hit squad with a rank of 3d10. Anytime they send those characters do do something, I will roll that pool against the target and determine the result that way. This generally has worked well.

That goes even more broadly than having hirelings do things. If you're dealing with the larger scale, it often necessitates more abstraction. In my Vinland campaign, there would sometimes be mass combats as part of raids with many dozens of combatants, and I'd handle those as just having each player make three skill rolls on their most relevant skill, and narrated it as events over time.

I'd consider using a more mechanical mass combat system - but only if it is really well worked out and interesting to play. Just tossing in some arbitrary mechanics is worse than hand-waving it, in my experience.

Quote from: Melichor on July 21, 2021, 11:00:08 AMWould you be willing to share your tweak? I like getting the players involved in large battles.

I'm starting off with a base of OD&D. Empire of the Petal Throne has a rule where if attacking a group of similar enemies, any damage beyond what is needed to kill one monster rolls over to another starting with the monster with the fewest hit points. So if a PC does 7 points of damage to group of three goblins with 2, 3, and 4 hit points, that PC will kill the first two goblins and do 2 points of damage to the goblin with 4 hit points.

In addition, I give higher level characters extra damage every four hit dice*. For example, a PC with a sword will do 1d8 damage at first level, 2d8 damage when he gets to 4 hit dice, 3d8 damage at 8 hit dice, etc. Critical hits double the number of dice roll. So a 8 hit die character rolling a crit will do 6d8 points of damage and capable of killing multiple gnolls or similar monters.

Because this applies at to starting PCs, you can introduce large numbers of very low level monsters into combat from the very first adventure. In additions, the part where you allocate damage to the character with the fewest hit points first means a party can have a Sergeant with several man-at-arms and the Sergeant will usually be the last person killed in a group. Therefore these NPCs will be more survivable even when engaged in multiple large fights. 

*As this is OD&D, characters gain hit dice at different rates based on their class. Thus a Cleric would need to be level 6 to have 4 hit dice and gain the bonus damage.

The Empire of the Petal Throne setting encouraged large groups of people as each important person needs an entourage to support them, in the style they are accustomed. 
While this may not hold true for a new character, they will either be in the entourage, or soon develop the need for their own.
If they are not playing a "Murder-Hobo" style game.

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2021, 03:32:17 PM

Just an FYI that first quote isn't mine, it is another poster's

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2021, 03:32:17 PM



That goes even more broadly than having hirelings do things. If you're dealing with the larger scale, it often necessitates more abstraction. In my Vinland campaign, there would sometimes be mass combats as part of raids with many dozens of combatants, and I'd handle those as just having each player make three skill rolls on their most relevant skill, and narrated it as events over time.

I'd consider using a more mechanical mass combat system - but only if it is really well worked out and interesting to play. Just tossing in some arbitrary mechanics is worse than hand-waving it, in my experience.

I found this as well. For large combat I just expanded the system above and did a dice pool roll off between the sides based on who has the strongest position and most numbers. The losing side just loses a die or two on the next roll till they have to flee or get slaughtered.

Dark Continent: Adventure in Darkest Africa RPG

Might be your Jam if expeditions are a thing.

A BPR derivative game. Rules for PC creation, outfitting an expedition - travel and resources.

Also mass combat for when your expedition comes across hostile natives, or you just don't feel like paying the Hongo to pass through their territory...

The mass combat is a bit clever as a better led smaller force can beat one with superior numbers if you plan well.

Pendragon is really prone to having big expeditions for everything.

A knight will typically have a riding horse, a charger, a squire, a riding horse for the squire and a pack horse.

A party of 5 knights will therefore have 20 horses, there were many debates involving "Do we need the whole circus" and "Yes, I'm not cooking my own food!"

This thread made me think of this video I saw today. Now, this guy could gear up by himself, but having a squire to help him makes it a lot easier, gives him a better fit and all that. And obviously at the end of the day his squire would clean off the mud and dust, or blood and guts, oil the leather, repair any minor tears and all that. And when the warrior was not wearing all their gear, the squire could carry it.

It's realistic and reasonable for an adventuring party to have many people like this, in addition of course to men-at-arms. Whether realism and reason are part of your campaign is another matter, of course, and whether any of this ought to be reflected in game mechanics something else still.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 28, 2021, 06:16:04 AM
This thread made me think of this video I saw today. Now, this guy could gear up by himself, but having a squire to help him makes it a lot easier, gives him a better fit and all that. And obviously at the end of the day his squire would clean off the mud and dust, or blood and guts, oil the leather, repair any minor tears and all that. And when the warrior was not wearing all their gear, the squire could carry it.

It's realistic and reasonable for an adventuring party to have many people like this, in addition of course to men-at-arms. Whether realism and reason are part of your campaign is another matter, of course, and whether any of this ought to be reflected in game mechanics something else still.

Greetings!

Very cool video, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 28, 2021, 06:16:04 AM
This thread made me think of this video I saw today. ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ofqIc1g1nI&pp=sAQA

Big fan of that Kind of Stuff:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 28, 2021, 06:16:04 AM
...
It's realistic and reasonable for an adventuring party to have many people like this, in addition of course to men-at-arms. Whether realism and reason are part of your campaign is another matter, of course, and whether any of this ought to be reflected in game mechanics something else still.

To me RPG's are not reality emulators - they are Genre emulators, and one needs to decide how grounded in 'reality' they want the genre of their game world to be.

IMHO - grounding adds to verisimilitude for me.

Most GM's 'handwave' encumbrance so long as the players keep it "reasonable", because the systems are so insanely generous.

As a matter of play - generous encumbrance systems are Bad game design.

IMHO players and GM's would engage with encumbrance systems in games more if they mattered more.  With a more restrictive system for encumbrance that was more grounded - PC's would have to make harder choices what they are carrying on adventures.

This adds tension to the game as the number of arrows a PC can carry would now matter. They are now worth tracking instead of just 'handwaving'.

The possibility of 'running out of arrows' mid-adventure now becomes a thing.

Torches, rations, How exactly are you going to carry out all that loot again??

Player hate inflicting any kind of penalties on themselves - In such a gaming situation they will go out of their way to carry what they 'need' without taking any kind of encumbrance based 'movement' penalties.

So the players themselves will drive that added tension of tracking low supplies by willingly not carrying anything more than they absolutely can without penalties.

It would be a balance you would have to strike - I think that making a system that takes into account Bulk along with weight would be a better solution. Assigning a 'Load' value to items rather than going by pure weight like most systems do.

The encumbrance system used in lamentations of the flame princess is far closer to what more games should be.

Quote from: Jaeger on July 28, 2021, 06:53:37 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 28, 2021, 06:16:04 AM
This thread made me think of this video I saw today. ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ofqIc1g1nI&pp=sAQA

Big fan of that Kind of Stuff:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 28, 2021, 06:16:04 AM
...
It's realistic and reasonable for an adventuring party to have many people like this, in addition of course to men-at-arms. Whether realism and reason are part of your campaign is another matter, of course, and whether any of this ought to be reflected in game mechanics something else still.

To me RPG's are not reality emulators - they are Genre emulators, and one needs to decide how grounded in 'reality' they want the genre of their game world to be.

IMHO - grounding adds to verisimilitude for me.

Most GM's 'handwave' encumbrance so long as the players keep it "reasonable", because the systems are so insanely generous.

As a matter of play - generous encumbrance systems are Bad game design.

IMHO players and GM's would engage with encumbrance systems in games more if they mattered more.  With a more restrictive system for encumbrance that was more grounded - PC's would have to make harder choices what they are carrying on adventures.

This adds tension to the game as the number of arrows a PC can carry would now matter. They are now worth tracking instead of just 'handwaving'.

The possibility of 'running out of arrows' mid-adventure now becomes a thing.

Torches, rations, How exactly are you going to carry out all that loot again??

Player hate inflicting any kind of penalties on themselves - In such a gaming situation they will go out of their way to carry what they 'need' without taking any kind of encumbrance based 'movement' penalties.

So the players themselves will drive that added tension of tracking low supplies by willingly not carrying anything more than they absolutely can without penalties.

It would be a balance you would have to strike - I think that making a system that takes into account Bulk along with weight would be a better solution. Assigning a 'Load' value to items rather than going by pure weight like most systems do.

The encumbrance system used in lamentations of the flame princess is far closer to what more games should be.

Greetings!

I agree, Jaeger! I'm pretty strict with encumbrance. It creates tension, inspires hard choices, and has an added benefit of forcing players to return to town or some other settlement to restock themselves on all kinds of supplies, from arrows, to water, rations, torches, rope, tools, and other gear. That also adds more opportunities for players to actually *role-play* amongst themselves and with other NPC's, and low and behold--their characters don't feel like two-dimensional game pieces, and increases immersion in the game world. It also creates a dynamic of *realism* where players are very much *mortal*--and pushes against the notion of everyone being a superhero that can blithely ignore such concerns of "lesser mortals".

What is the Encumbrance System in LOTFP all about? Can you detail it here, my friend?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on July 28, 2021, 08:52:19 PM
What is the Encumbrance System in LOTFP all about? Can you detail it here, my friend?

Raggi (admittedly) copied Delta's stone system of encumbrance. This is the original:

https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/09/stone-encumbrance-detail-example.html

Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2021, 09:37:29 PM

Quote from: SHARK on July 28, 2021, 08:52:19 PM
What is the Encumbrance System in LOTFP all about? Can you detail it here, my friend?

Raggi (admittedly) copied Delta's stone system of encumbrance. This is the original:

https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/09/stone-encumbrance-detail-example.html

Greetings!

Thank you, Pat! That's a very interesting Encumbrance system!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Jaeger on July 28, 2021, 06:53:37 PMTo me RPG's are not reality emulators - they are Genre emulators, and one needs to decide how grounded in 'reality' they want the genre of their game world to be.

IMHO - grounding adds to verisimilitude for me.

I go back and forth about encumbrance systems. On one hand, you need something to prevent the players going all out but OTOH, most of the penalty goes away as soon as a player buys a horse (or, worse yet, get's a cart).

Plus, if you are concerned about modeling reality, encumbrance shouldn't make a character slower, but make them tire faster. To me this has been a more effective penalty as often once combat starts a character's movement rate doesn't really make much difference and I'd argue that "exploration" speed is already so slow (at least in D&D) that it shouldn't be affected by encumbrance at all. 

QuoteThe encumbrance system used in lamentations of the flame princess is far closer to what more games should be.

Given the rest of your post, I'm surprised you recommended the LotFP system as I found it too gamey and overly complex.

IRL large scale wilderness expeditions of the kind contemplated in 1e AD&D tended to be about 30 people, often with native guides. The Lewis & Clark expedition and another American one into the Gobi Desert ca 1930 I recall were both that size. You also see this in the old Tarzan films and suchlike. FRPGs tend to default to more of a Fellowship of the Ring model with a single-digit size group; which makes some sense when the members are all of superhuman proficiency.

IMCs the PCs are more commonly in borderland regions where they can usually spend the night at an inn, farmhouse or (at worst) abandoned farmhouse. My Primeval Thule game did have larger scale expeditions & had a mix of expedition sizes; but typically the PCs would have a ship with double-digit crew that took them to the vicinity of the adventure location, then the small PC-group expedition would set off from the ship using it or a local settlement as base camp.

There were 15 people in The Hobbit's party - 13 dwarves, plus Gandalf and Bilbo. Then 9 in the Fellowship of the Ring.

Not quite the 30+ companies we're talking about, but larger than many adventuring parties in D&D.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 29, 2021, 08:25:52 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on July 28, 2021, 06:53:37 PMTo me RPG's are not reality emulators - they are Genre emulators, and one needs to decide how grounded in 'reality' they want the genre of their game world to be.

IMHO - grounding adds to verisimilitude for me.

I go back and forth about encumbrance systems. On one hand, you need something to prevent the players going all out but OTOH, most of the penalty goes away as soon as a player buys a horse (or, worse yet, get's a cart).

Plus, if you are concerned about modeling reality, encumbrance shouldn't make a character slower, but make them tire faster. To me this has been a more effective penalty as often once combat starts a character's movement rate doesn't really make much difference and I'd argue that "exploration" speed is already so slow (at least in D&D) that it shouldn't be affected by encumbrance at all. 

QuoteThe encumbrance system used in lamentations of the flame princess is far closer to what more games should be.

Given the rest of your post, I'm surprised you recommended the LotFP system as I found it too gamey and overly complex.

I keep tinkering with encumbrance, trying to hit a sweet spot between a system with teeth that creates real choices but not tracking everything.  I'm content to sacrifice a little verisimilitude (or even consistency) to get teeth + simplicity.   I think there almost has to be a mix of hard tracking and hand waving to pull that off.  For example, your readily accessible arrows and daggers and such are tracked.  Your loose change, some small basic gear, etc. gets rolled up into a pouch that you either have the whole thing or you don't--1 encumbrance unit no matter how much you have in there or just ignore it entirely (doesn't really matter if building the system from the ground up).  Yeah, that bag of 200 gold coins you found is heavy.  That's tracked. 

Another thing I'm experimenting with--in part to encourage followers, camp guards, pack animals, etc.-- is what I'm calling "party encumbrance".  The rough idea is that each party member donates a few encumbrance slots to party stuff--torches, food, water, extra ammo, etc.  Things that get carried and used in bulk.  It's assumed that these are roughly distributed to the party members.  So if someone needs it right now, I'll use GM fiat to let them have it, usually.  However, each person is responsible for tracking the bulk of their dedicated slots.  So Bob isn't tracking 2 rations, 1 waterskin, 6 spare arrows, 3 flasks of oil, etc.  He's tracking 2 encumbrance slots worth of rations, and marking them off as the group eats.  If they start to run out of something, then they have to specify who has it--however by then it doesn't weight much so it goes into the hand waved miscellaneous section of the equipment list (e.g. isn't tracked). 

The other key to me is accessibility and containers.  How are you carrying all that stuff and how fast can you get to it in a crisis?  If it ready to hand, it counts, because it is on a belt or in a pouch or such. It's not buried in the bottom of your backpack, packed very carefully against breakage, and hard to pull out in a hurry. 

I do track bulk separately from weight for items where it matters.  That's rolled up into the encumbrance stat (ENC) which is informed by but separate from weight. 

BTW, I looked at several "stone" based encumbrance systems before doing mine, though it was long ago and evolved through several other attempts.  The Delta system probably informed mine, either directly or indirectly.  I ended up using "stone" to be 12 pounds, breaking the historical accuracy part in order to have 12 pound divisions for partial units, all of which are set at either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 pounds so that an even number fit in 1 stone.  There's something to be said for splitting the difference and using Delta's 1/3 marker for consistency.

Regarding encumbrance systems -- if one has a large expedition then tracking all individual items like number of arrows and torches quickly becomes a big headache of bookkeeping. Thus, I prefer to do encumbrance more by GM fiat than by exact calculation, like "You're starting to run low on supplies" rather than making players have spreadsheets of all the supplies.

I used a loose system for both encumbrance and wealth for my Vinland game, because tracking individual items was too much bookkeeping.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 30, 2021, 07:04:13 AM
There were 15 people in The Hobbit's party - 13 dwarves, plus Gandalf and Bilbo. Then 9 in the Fellowship of the Ring.

Not quite the 30+ companies we're talking about, but larger than many adventuring parties in D&D.

I think LotR is the model for much of D&D, though. They travel extremely light, and for much of the books it is smaller parties -- at first the four hobbits, then five with Aragorn -- and later the split fellowship with two on one side and five on the other. They have very little amenities or supplies mentioned other than lembas. Emulating this is the default for a lot of D&D parties. And there's nothing wrong with that -- it's fun, and if supply trains aren't fun for the players, I don't think it should be done.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 29, 2021, 08:25:52 PM

QuoteThe encumbrance system used in lamentations of the flame princess is far closer to what more games should be.

Given the rest of your post, I'm surprised you recommended the LotFP system as I found it too gamey and overly complex.

Closer is the operative word here for me. I agree that you are basically correct in your assessment, but it is a step in the right direction.

LoTFP is better than 5e D&D because at least it is laid out in a way that actually makes the players engage with the enc system. it makes pg2 of a character sheet actually useful.

In normal D&D everything just has a weight - you are supposed to add it all together then note how "encumbered" you are. (all in a small lined area on your character sheet.)

Yeah, no wonder it gets hand waved a lot when those "weight limits" to be encumbered are so generous...

I think a system that has it all set up on the character sheet forces players to engage it, and tight limits makes it meaningful.

Personally I would want a system that takes 'bulk' into account for items like some slot based enc systems do, but I haven't seen anything that has hit my sweet spot yet, so I may have to work one out on my own.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 30, 2021, 01:51:37 PM
BTW, I looked at several "stone" based encumbrance systems before doing mine, though it was long ago and evolved through several other attempts.  The Delta system probably informed mine, either directly or indirectly.  I ended up using "stone" to be 12 pounds, breaking the historical accuracy part in order to have 12 pound divisions for partial units, all of which are set at either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 pounds so that an even number fit in 1 stone.  There's something to be said for splitting the difference and using Delta's 1/3 marker for consistency.

I think "stone-based" systems get about the right level of encumbrance per slot, but I dislike equating encumbrance level to weight alone. Bulk matters too.

Quote from: Zalman on July 30, 2021, 04:30:19 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 30, 2021, 01:51:37 PM
BTW, I looked at several "stone" based encumbrance systems before doing mine, though it was long ago and evolved through several other attempts.  The Delta system probably informed mine, either directly or indirectly.  I ended up using "stone" to be 12 pounds, breaking the historical accuracy part in order to have 12 pound divisions for partial units, all of which are set at either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 pounds so that an even number fit in 1 stone.  There's something to be said for splitting the difference and using Delta's 1/3 marker for consistency.

I think "stone-based" systems get about the right level of encumbrance per slot, but I dislike equating encumbrance level to weight alone. Bulk matters too.

Agreed.  Even hinted at it later in that same post.  I really need a better word for 12th of my stone, but "pound" was how I thought of it as a rough gauge to start with. 

I made longbows take up the full stone.  So does a quarterstaff. 

Quote from: jhkim on July 30, 2021, 02:22:33 PM
I think LotR is the model for much of D&D, though. They travel extremely light, and for much of the books it is smaller parties

I recently read Dunbar's book Friends (https://www.bookdepository.com/Friends-Robin-Dunbar/9781408711736), and he mentioned studies that a pair is a conversation, 3 people are a conversation, 4 people as well - but 5 or more becomes 2+ conversations. If there are 5+ and one person is speaking, it's not a conversation but a lecture.

With that in mind, splitting large groups into small in fiction is a literary device of convenience. If we are 30 in a room there's no way any single person can keep track of all the different conversations going on. If we described it in writing then we'd pick one conversation and focus on that, at most we might describe a second, "Meanwhile across the room they were saying -"

Now, here's the difference between writing and roleplaying in this respect. In writing we can just have a core group of main characters and not describe the others much. You get this in people's writing about a small village, like Wendell Berry's fictional Port William (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_William_(Wendell_Berry)) - the place has a population of hundreds, but he focuses on just a few characters in each story. But that was a town, a fixed place, and he was telling particular kinds of stories - none of them adventure stories. In an adventure story you tend to have to describe what everyone is doing, and it would get tedious to write, "and the camp followers followed along."

But in an rpg you can have the main characters and then the faceless mass follow along. The concept of main and secondary characters is even baked into the early rules, with one group of people having classes and levels, and most people being 0-level commoners (or men-at-arms). It's not as burdensome to have them along.

Now we come back to the bit about LotR. Yes, that's in many players' minds when they come to play. But gaming began with wargaming. That's why it's called an adventuring campaign. Drawing on those ideas and experiences leads to a different kind of play.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 30, 2021, 01:41:09 PM
I keep tinkering with encumbrance, trying to hit a sweet spot between a system with teeth that creates real choices but not tracking everything.  I'm content to sacrifice a little verisimilitude (or even consistency) to get teeth + simplicity.   I think there almost has to be a mix of hard tracking and hand waving to pull that off.  For example, your readily accessible arrows and daggers and such are tracked.  Your loose change, some small basic gear, etc. gets rolled up into a pouch that you either have the whole thing or you don't--1 encumbrance unit no matter how much you have in there or just ignore it entirely (doesn't really matter if building the system from the ground up).  Yeah, that bag of 200 gold coins you found is heavy.  That's tracked. 

I'm playing OSE for the first time right now, and we track individual count of everything - torches, rations, etc - but only individual weight of armour, weapons, and treasure. All the adventuring gear is a flat 80 coins per person.

That's really light, but weight limits are tight enough to really matter anyway - our characters in plate armour are stripping it off for long distance travel, because it speeds the entire party up 50% and we were running into time limits, but just now we got into a short-range dangerous situation where they're both unarmoured. Consequences.

Quote from: Naburimannu on July 31, 2021, 07:38:16 AM
That's really light, but weight limits are tight enough to really matter anyway - our characters in plate armour are stripping it off for long distance travel, because it speeds the entire party up 50% and we were running into time limits, but just now we got into a short-range dangerous situation where they're both unarmoured. Consequences.

A long as the GM doesn't intentionally use things like this to screw the players, it reflects a realistic happening.
Parties use scouts for a reason.

Quote from: Jaeger on July 30, 2021, 04:19:22 PMPersonally I would want a system that takes 'bulk' into account for items like some slot based enc systems do, but I haven't seen anything that has hit my sweet spot yet, so I may have to work one out on my own.

Runequest had a simple system that could be used to take bulk into account as each item is rated on a separate scale. The total number of points a character could carry is the average of his Str and Con. Most things, such as swords cost 1 slot.

I use a similar system in my OD&D game and to help track encumbrance I created a ton of treasure cards. Each card has a value as well as a weight in this scale. This system also gets rid of the need to track the various values of coin types as each bag of coins has its own weight and value and stating the actual distribution of coinage is not necessary.

(https://i.imgur.com/NLIpurH.jpg)

These are just printed on sheets of pre-perforated business cards bought at a office supply store.


One thing I've noticed about using cards to represent treasure is that the players are more likely to use things like potions when it's on a card rather than when it's just written on a sheet of paper.

When the guys at Paradigm tried to write their own system for their Arcanis setting (originally 3e, presently 5e) they had a pretty good encumbrance system based on bulk.

The short version of which is characters could handle bulk up to their Fortitude defense without penalty. Fortitude was a total of the character's Might (Strength) + Vigor (Constitution) + a static value.

Translated to 5e it'd be something like characters can carry up to 8 + Str mod + Con mod Bulk without penalty.

For some values, a dagger is 1, a side/arming sword 3, a greatsword 5, a longbow 5, a quiver of 20 arrows is 2, most light armor is 2, medium armor is 3-4, heavy 4-5, a large shield 3, a backpack is 2 (holds up to 10 bulk [max. 3 bulk/item] and reduces bulk of items in it by half), a week's rations 3, bedroll 3, 100 coins is 1.

With typical Fortitude defenses in the 16-18 range, it was pretty easy to overburden yourself. Medium armor 3 + shield 3 + longsword 3 + dagger 1 + shortbow 4 + quiver (20 arrows) 2 + backpack 2 + bedroll 3/2 + week's rations 3/2 + a full waterskin 2 is 22 bulk.

You wanted the quick release option on your pack, so you only needed what in 5e would be a bonus action to shed the 7-ish bulk of it and fight effectively. Woe is you if you have to retreat and leave your pack with your food, water, bedding and any treasure behind though.

Up to 1.5x your Fortitude (24-27) it's not too bad; in 5e terms, -5' speed, -1 AC, -1 to all STR, DEX and CON checks (including saves), but it gets progressively worse at 2x (double the above penalties) and 3x (quadruple so -20' speed [i.e. 10' move for humans], -4 to AC and all STR/DEX/CON checks/saves) and you can't move at all at 4x.

I don't know if I'd use it per se; my own system is already fairly restrictive just using weight (a PC with strength as their dump stat can barely manage a basic adventurer's kit and a single weapon, much less even light armor or any treasure to speak of; average strength could just handle light armor, a weapon or two and an adventurer's kit), but it's definitely an interesting system.

Quote from: jhkim on July 30, 2021, 02:22:33 PM
Regarding encumbrance systems -- if one has a large expedition then tracking all individual items like number of arrows and torches quickly becomes a big headache of bookkeeping. Thus, I prefer to do encumbrance more by GM fiat than by exact calculation, like "You're starting to run low on supplies" rather than making players have spreadsheets of all the supplies.

I used a loose system for both encumbrance and wealth for my Vinland game, because tracking individual items was too much bookkeeping.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 30, 2021, 07:04:13 AM
There were 15 people in The Hobbit's party - 13 dwarves, plus Gandalf and Bilbo. Then 9 in the Fellowship of the Ring.

Not quite the 30+ companies we're talking about, but larger than many adventuring parties in D&D.

I think LotR is the model for much of D&D, though. They travel extremely light, and for much of the books it is smaller parties -- at first the four hobbits, then five with Aragorn -- and later the split fellowship with two on one side and five on the other. They have very little amenities or supplies mentioned other than lembas. Emulating this is the default for a lot of D&D parties. And there's nothing wrong with that -- it's fun, and if supply trains aren't fun for the players, I don't think it should be done.

  I think the Hobbit is more the model.  LotR they have a much more clearly defined goal and destination, and a time limit to get there.   They keep the party small not for practical purposes of travel, but because you have to be very careful about who knows of the ring and their intentions (less people in the party is fewer people to stab you in the back).  But I do agree that many players are not going to want to do an oregon trail sim for their supply train.  My players usually hire a guide who handles logistics and hiring porters/mules/etc.   I do not go with the tired trope of having the guide try to screw them, so it works out.  They do always prefer to have hired men at arms with them though, as the systems we usually play favor having more people in combat drastically (GURPS and SWADE).